finally let's speak to what the build-out could be? so there is already a lot of uses on the ground today. we have a 700 houses unitss and 50,000 jobs in the neighborhood. and just to talk about jobs for a second, the real impetus of this plan is to support job growth. we have done a lot of planning in the planning department for the last ten years for housing. the housing market is in demand all over san francisco. there is very limited demand for jobs in areas outside of transit. so we looked at this as an opportunity to up the amount of jobs that could happen in the neighborhood. with that being said, if we didn't change existing zoning, there is capacity today and a lot of parking lots and even in the neighborhoods that are zoned currently for housing and office. there is a lot of development potential and we could almost double the housing units without changing at all and could add another 20,000 jobs. if we changed zoning to central

soma, adding housing units and jobs, depending on the market and the time, the market is flexible. we prefer to see jobs -- we'll push to have more jobs, but we understand under certain economic conditions, developers will prefer to build housing units. so with that being said, i would like to turn it over to mara hunter from mta staff to get more in-depth about the transportation that would accompany what we're proposing for the land use. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> mare hunter with the mta. so as steve mentioned, much is happening with the land use changes. so our work with the -- we partnered with the planning department to then look at the transportation network and make sure that we are allocating the right-of-way to meet the demands of the new

trips generated by the addition of a lot of residential and employment opportunities. in doing so the mta had a number of groups coming together, local streets, transportation, engineering, traffic engineering, transit engineering, strategic planning and policy, and we looked at a number of different plans in the area to make sure that at the edges, that all of those things worked together nicely. as mentioned earlier, we took the work of that to really develop the plans for folsom and howard. and tep earlier from sean kennedy's presentation, making sure that we're accommodating the other things that are already taking place, as well as what we anticipate to do in the future. there were six principles that

were artic articulated in the central soma plan, pedestrian, cyclist, transit riders as well as people going through the area for commercial purposes, deliveries and such. so these principles we identified a number of objectives to focus on each corridor in the project area to look at how we can improve pedestrian conditions from wider sidewalks, more crossing opportunities, calming traffic. we know that speeding is a major concern, because we have a lot of regional traffic coming through, meeting a local network. we need to protecttransit and in protecting transit, we're effectively protecting traffic, because you have separated those things.

cars are not getting stuck behind buses weaving in and out. so that is a win-win. we're also aware of parking needs and loading needs and finally, but not -- last, but not least, biking. those numbers are growing with the bike share program coming out, we know we need to provide facilities. that was something that came out of the public workshops that steve had mentioned. a lot of people were commenting on lack of bike facilities in soma. >> what does restricting curb cuts mean? >> restricting curb cuts, for like driveways and such, we want to minimize those, because they are opportunities for people to get hit while they are walking. >> not for corner cuts, but driveway cuts? >> yes. >> and one more question, my memory fails what "end trips" ?

>> the eastern neighborhoods transportation >> thank you. a bunch of new buzzwords for us. >> can you explain that curb cuts again? >> when you are walking on the sidewalk, curb cuts for someone's driveway or for a garage or something, we want to minimize that, because it's just more opportunity and increases the exposure to pedestrians to be hit. >> oh, okay. >> so this slide just demonstrates all of the corridors that we're touching. steve mentioned the boundaries before and you can see where really we developed concepts for everything in the north, 3rd and 4th, just the north half of the 4th street and central subway is taking care

of the southern portion. 5th street was identified in the bike plan. so that is moving forward separately. and then mission street is also moving forward separately through the tep. in light of the mayor's directive for pedestrian safety that was released in april of this year, in this graphic you can see all of those little segments may block our new opportunities. central soma blocks are long and people tend to dash across this -- at least it will provide a safe place for them to do that. so they don't have to jay-walk. so the next few slides are cross-sections of the corridors that we have developed concepts for. i want to make it clear that

these are general. the corridors are long. they vary from block to block. so again, very general. for harrison and bryant, knowing that this is an area where we have a lot of regional traffic coming in, we need to make sure that we can accommodate those traffic volumes. so we are going to keep this a major thoroughfare and do just a minor lane reduction. the top is existing conditions and the lower is proposed. it goes from five to four lanes. as part of making sure that we can accommodate traffic volumes a number of our concepts introduced time, time of day type of uses. so in the lower left-hand street -- excuse me, lane. it will be parking in the evenings. but a traffic lane during the

day, during peak hours. oh, i just wanted to mention that all of these, again, do try to accommodate all of those principles that we identified in the central soma plan. in this one we're widening sidewalks. this happens to be a bryant street cross-section that is going eastbound. so transit-only lane for the 8x. cross-section for brannon. this is an opportunity to introduce bike facilities as requested by the public. they want to see more opportunities for that and we added cycle tracks and lined the sidewalks and of course to do that in the finite right-of-way it requires taking some parking. and so we have done that, and we're hoping it will be in place hopefully with minimal impacts. for 3rd and 4th streets, this

is 3th street going northbound, but they are mirrored. we're attempting to beef up that transit-only lane and make sure we can protect that. we are adding a -- proposing to add a cycle track and again to do that, we need to take some space from parking and traffic. we did work closely with traffic engineering, ricardo's group and working closely to make this feasible and not just pie-in-it-sky kind of idea and by protecting transit-only lanes it will inspire people to use these other modes. widening sidewalks it will be easier and safer for people to bike and easier for transit to be more reliable and efficient. so hopefully people will move out of cars and into these. >> can i ask a question? >> yes. >> i understand what you are trying to accomplish. how do you accommodate service

vehicles then? >> like fire trucks? >> delivery vehicles? >> again >> it is just a cross-section. there will be loading bays for commercial loads and drop-offs. it will vary from block to block, depending on demand. >> this goes back to the discussion that we had earlier that i couldn't participate in, 3rd street is a major north arterial there. that is what folks who are getting off the highway are using to get into downtown -- that is pretty much the straight shot to downtown. so i guess my question is on some of these less thoroughfare roads where we're expanding sidewalks and where we're putting in cycle tracks and that sort of thing, i see the trade-off. we're not going impact traffic a great deal and we're going

enhance the neighborhood, if anyone has walked out of a ballgame knows needs wider sidewalks. on that particular street, is the trade-off really worth it? if we could put that slide back up, you are taking out two lanes of traffic. >> i'm sorry, i don't know how to do that. >> 3rd street. >> yes. so we are in the midst of environmental right now, and if we learn that this is a complete disaster, obviously, we will revisit. >> well, hopefully the standard isn't complete disaster. [ laughter ] the optimal flow here and it just seems to me that the cycle track on this particular arterial maybe do we need to

widen -- bikes and pedestrians can go lots of places and i'm in favor of these improvements on non-arterial routes. but now we're hitting one that is san franciscans coming into san francisco and the traffic on 3rd street is already not great at certain times. so that is my concern is really 3rd street. >> i think director heinicke you have a really good point and similar to the tep point that director reiskin responded to quite eloquently. this is the maximum thing we could do on 3rd and 4th street. obviously when we do the analysis and get more into detail, the ability for us to do all of this will be dependent on many factors. so we may decide that the transit lane is the most important thing to do, if we're going to see a huge impact on regional traffic. we as a city haven't really made clear our role on regional

traffic. so this project is really pushing that for us. so we'll figure that out as we get closer to the analysis. i take that point. >> and we'll be looking at capacity as well, won't we? >> right. >> because i know that we look at a bunch of cars in travel lanes, and we think that is moving loads and loads of people, but the reality may well be with the transit lane and with that cycle track and widened sidewalk we'll have the ability to move more people. and 3rd street is people coming into the caltrain station. >> other way, 3rd street is northbound. >> 3rd street onto market street. you are exactly right and one area that the team is looking at is the ridership on the bus, looking at the current ridership of people on bicycles

and don't forget from moscone to market street, as mare mentioned in the safety strategy, this area is one of the hotspots of pedestrian safety. so we're going to have to trade-off regional traffic priority, local traffic priority, et cetera. >> do we get better car through-put when cars are traveling on a street with no parking lane? i know in san francisco we seem to have parking on every street, even arterials, even sort of van ness and geary, that i would think in other cities would be arterials with no parking. do we get better car through-put when cars are traveling on a street without parking lanes? >> i think we'll see that in the analysis, what that looks like. but general observations from other places is that when you

have less weaving of anything, whether it's transit, bicycles, parking, through-put tends to be more effective. >> so we could end up with the same through-put with fewer peak hour traffic lanes? >> potentially. we'll know more when we look into that. >> 3rd and townsend all the way up to market and onto kerney? >> correct. >> i know it's a work in progress, but it can barely work now. >> i share that concern and i go back to the reason why we're doing this in the first place, which is there will be a tunneled subway under that, serving that and whether that our planning will be there will be fewer bus lines or greater headway there. no? no. >> the demand in that corridor

is almost insatiable. >> i will come back to my original point that i hope you are considering that. i think through my head, all of those streets that can handle it, the traffic can go elsewhere and that is good and then you get to 3rd street and i question that. >> all the staff are in agreement. we have been trying to figure out how to deal with 3rd and 4th streets, because that is the area with the most needs for all users. so it's going to be eventually a trade-off. >> i know when moscone has a major convention, you will see like five tractor-trailers. >> the point i was going to suggest is as we learn -- or as you all learned from the forest hill discussion, i think there is actually wisdom to the fact that vibrant arterials

will make the nearby streets more accommodating to the neighborhood and pedestrians and all of that, because you have threw through car traffic. whereas i'm worried if you bottle 3rd street, you will defeat the whole purpose of the neighborhood plan: >> because it's a lattice grid, we're prioritizing certain corridors for multi-modal movement and one challenge in and to try and test these outcomes, which is also why one of the reasons we're looking at that folsom street pilot right now. maybe howell or 3rd or 4th. we don't know yet, but rather than going to the full phrase

and starting construction, to see how it works. >> going back to director heinicke's point, the bikes and pedestrians go have options, because it's flat for the most part. so i think as along as you were saying, you provide for the different modes on streets in a reasonable distance that i think it could. >> directors? director rubke? >> i know this is still in the concept phase and we're still going -- there is a lot of work to be done, but the timing of this versus the 2nd street project. because this is kind of my neighborhood and a lot of people have expressed concerns about through-put? >> we can jump to that now or? >> soon. thank you. next steps. >> so folsom and howard, as

noted earlier, this was identified in en trips. en trips provided a few promising alternatives, a few keeping them one way and a few changing them to two way. so we developed a one way and two-way option, both working through environment and the folsom street pilot project will provide a lot of critical data to inform the final concept. so the one-way offers a -- this is folsom -- a two-way cycle track. on the north side of the street. and the two-way and a transit-only lane during peak hours.

and then the two-way has a separated cycle track on both sides. and again to do these things and widen sidewalks, it's the trade-off again, where we have to take parking or take a traffic lane and it's not to penalize anything, but to accommodate the different kind of trips that are there, but also the new land uses will be hopefully such that someone can walk and bike and take transit to home to the store to their job. so we're hoping that the length and nature of the trips will be different. as far as funding is concerned, to-date it's been accommodated or excuse me, funded by a few grants, and agreements or work orders between the two agencies. moving forward, and right now

through environmental, again, a few grants, mtc, the mayor's general fund, and also through moscone. it is a plan that we're also working on to make sure these things are compatible, but moscone is chiping in some money. and then finally for design and construction, much of that will depend on development impact fees and it's expected that impact fees will generate that. >> we could actually have money for this one. >> if the development comes, we will build it. so the transportation impact study, the draft is coming out within the next month. the first draft. then there is the second draft.

then there is the screen shot, and soon we will -- we have been planning the outreach process specifically for transportation, but planning department can speak to that part and more general environmental review. the draft eir is coming out mid-september of next year and so we are continuing to work together to make sure that things continue to move forward. >> thank you very much. good to see the cooperation of the two departments working so well together on this. >> we need an answer to the 2nd street question timing if you know off the top of your head? >> i don't know off the top of my head. i believe it's beginning environmental review now. >> it's like slightly ahead of this thing? >> i think they are doing a focused eir. so it could be that the timing somewhat

coincides. >> would you step up to the microphone, please. thank you. >> i think it's on a parallel process, but everything that is being worked on the 2nd street is incorporated into this. so there is no difference. >> this is an informational session this afternoon, there is no action required by the board? >> there is no action. >> thank you. we can look forward to a robust gold standard community outreach as we have had with two other things that have come to the board recently, where our community members are quite pleased with notification, with meetings and timing and things like that. >> candace from communications is drafting this new public outreach process, which sounds really promising and very robust and we'll be drawing from that for this process. >> good. and we'll of course, i'm sure, we'll be shared a loop in the

supervisors, the appropriate supervisors. >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> if i could just add one comment, chairman nolan, just to provide balance to the comments made by director heinicke with yes we'll have a central subway in the future, which will probably reduce a lot of the need for too much travel outside of a car. i do want to make sure just to provide a balance, that often times new transit systems or a new transit station from my perspective is going to generate more pedestrian and more bicycle trips to those stations. right now, it's just an absolute nightmare to get around on a bicycle or as a pedestrian. i'm actually looking very forward to doing whatever we can to prioritize the transit or the bicycling in that part of the city, specifically as access to getting to those future stations. so looking forward to the analyses in the future and seeing that it

doesn't create an absolute disaster or what have you, but really looking forward to looking at the through-put and how it's going balance out the project. >> thank you very much. thank you all. next item, miss boomer. >> mr. chairman, i don't see any member of the public. >> i don't either. >> item 15, presentation and discussion regarding sfmta's fiscal year 2012-2013 year-end financial audit. directors no members of the public have expressed an interest in addressing you on this matter.

>> we also have a member who has to leave at 5:00. >> it will only take a minute. sorry, directors. cfo, we're required to come before you every year to present the audit. this is the third year we're coming in front of you. i also want to present the partner from kpmg, who is going to present after me, nancy rose. just quickly we were able to complete the audit by the 1st, the earliest we have ever done it. we have no findings for the third year and so that is a good process. in terms of our revenues, we were $103 million over '11-12, the majority in the operating side, as well as significant contributions from our capital projects, mostly the central

subway. our expenses were also higher by $67 million and the difference from prior year, we added $36 million to change in net assets. in terms of balance sheet, our cash position is better and we had $76 million in capital assets that we put in the ground and total assets increase the $132 million, liabilities increased mostly in state grant prop b that we receiveded in advance of the actual work and then we had about $53 million increase in post employment benefits. so the overall picture is positive. let's me turn it over to miss rose. >> good afternoon. thank you for being with us. >> good afternoon and thank you for having me here today.

my name is nancy rose and i'm an audit partner with kpmg and we were engaged for the financial statement audit for the municipal transportation agency. we have completed that audit. as was mention we had did it earlier -- completed it earlier than we have in the past. the presentation i have, we just have some formal required communications to you to let you know that we did conduct the audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the united states. we did not do an audit of internal controls, but helped us plan our process. in addition, we have not completed yet, but we're in the process of doing the single auditor a-133 audit that does involve us getting an understanding of internal controls. for the financial statement audit we did get an

understanding of internal controls to understand the process and as was mentioned we did not identity any deficiencies in internal control. we also performed task work compliance with rules and regulations and did not note any instances of non-compliance. the objective of the audit is to issue an opinion on the financial statements to let you know that we have performed the audit; that there were no material misstatements and we get reasonable assurance, not absence assurance that the numbers were not misstated. we did not identify any audit adjustments. and so if we had, that would have led us to evaluating internal controls for that to be presented and we would have misstatement for that, too. we do look at the agency's significant accounting polices. there were some that were new

for this year that are required for all governmental agencis this year. and they primarily dealt with presentation and none that changed the method for how accounting was determined. so when you look at the financials, we do a risk-based approach, where we look at where are the significant accounting estimates and numbers that make up your financial statements? and probably the most significant one for you is the management's estimate of the accrued workers comp and accrued general liability with regard to any lawsuits or claims that might be out there. we looked at the -- with regard to those two items we did look at the analysiss that was prepared by your expert. we had our experts review it as well, to ensure that we felt comfortable with the amount that had been recorded